Douglas Young

[Lighthouses, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it boggles the mind even on a Friday morning that Reform comes along and tells us not to try to save the Canada taxpayers money.

The fact of the matter is that in the United States there is one lighthouse that is still staffed and it is a historical site. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, countries around the world have destaffed their lighthouses.

I understand the importance historically of lighthouses in British Columbia and Newfoundland, on both coasts of this country.

If the Reform Party wants to be consistent it should understand that even the Vancouver Sun had a headline that said: ``It is time to switch off our lighthouse keepers''. It is time for the Reform Party to switch on the light to reality as it relates to some of these technological changes.

[Flags Of Convenience, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's frustration. We are trying to do the best we can. We have been here for a year now. I am sure everybody recognizes that we are trying to do as much as we can in a year.

May I say with respect to many of these issues that they went on for years and years under the previous administration. It was not able to deal with them through eight or nine years. We are going to try to get it done as quickly as we can.

[Flags Of Convenience, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we were indeed informed of that situation and we examined the facts concerning the ferries, which are the ships at issue. It is true that these ships fly a foreign flag and, at times, some crew members are foreigners.

We asked management at Marine Atlantic Inc. to check all the implications of a transfer, so that these ships can fly the Canadian flag. There are several issues involved, including the rather high costs of such a conversion, but we are looking at the situation.

[Pharmaceutical Industry, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question seemed to suggest that only Liberal members were interested in this issue. Obviously, the people throughout the country who have to pay the cost of drugs, organizations of all kinds, seniors and so on are very interested in it as well.

I want to assure my hon. colleague that although a committee of the House is looking at Bill C-91, the Government of Canada is very clear in its commitment to check all the data concerning this law, as the law itself provides, or any other legislation which must be reviewed at the appropriate time.

The original law already provided for a review of Bill C-91 at some point. We will do what must be done, but do not believe that just because a House committee is looking into some issue, the government's policy will change.

[Marine Transportation, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is completely false to claim that the Minister of Transport is threatening to abolish the pilotage system on the St. Lawrence or anywhere else in Canada.

A parliamentary sub-committee tabled a report and we will take its recommendations into consideration. But we will evaluate all changes in the context I have described previously, that of ensuring the security of people travelling on the St. Lawrence, or on the east or west coast.

As far as pilotage is concerned, no decision has been taken. I would like to assure my hon. colleague, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the time to start rumours that we are going to do anything today or tomorrow that could endanger those who need to have their safety ensured on land, at sea and in the air.

[Marine Transportation, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is no doubt that my hon. colleague attaches a great deal of importance to a report prepared by the transport sub-committee, but let us not exaggerate that importance. Before changes, if in fact there are any, can take place, all the implications will have to be examined.

And as far as security on the St. Lawrence River is concerned, we are obviously going to take great pains to ensure that any proposed changes will not result in greater risk than that already existing.

When I listen to the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Bloc speaking about budgetary restraint and the need to examine all possible avenues to cut costs, I wish to make it quite clear that we will examine all the possibilities, but we will also maintain our responsibility for security on the St. Lawrence River and elsewhere in Canada.

[Marine Transportation, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of new technology or the changes in any system having to do with maintaining safety and security whether it is in the air, on the sea or on land will always have as its very first priority the safety and security of Canadians and anyone who travels in Canadian controlled environment.

I want to reassure my colleague that whatever changes are made, and this report is one of many that will have to be considered, the first priority will always be to make sure that we are respecting safety and security. Any arrangements whether they are with the United States or any other international arrangement we enter into will always focus on safety and security because that is the fiduciary responsibility of the Department of Transport.

[Marine Transportation, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we understand the great importance of safe navigation on the St. Lawrence River and elsewhere, and the report submitted by the sub-committee will be thoroughly examined. I want to reassure the hon. member and tell him that we will not take any measure that would jeopardize the safety of those who navigate on the St. Lawrence River or elsewhere.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for recognizing that I had tried to explain the context in which the remarks were made in Winnipeg.

I do not know the rules on this, but let me explain with respect to Churchill. There is a marine review going on and Churchill will be addressed as well as the comments made by my hon. friend whom he mentioned in his speech.

With respect to jobs in Winnipeg, CN has just announced hundreds of jobs in Winnipeg. I was there a couple of weeks ago and that was confirmed, so there has been an effort to retain some jobs there.

I want to address specifically the question that was raised a couple of weeks ago. In the 1950s and 1960s, thousands of CN employees worked in my province and many times I heard about the challenges that employees faced when representing their union brothers in trying to improve salaries, working conditions and safety conditions.

Many of these men to whom I spoke and listened to were veterans of World War I and II, like Luc Roussel and Bill Dunn who I mentioned this afternoon. They were very proud of what they had achieved in their military service but they understood they had very limited educations which was through no fault of their own. They had fought for their country and then they fought for their rights as workers, faced by highly skilled lawyers, negotiators for powerful railroad interests.

I said in Winnipeg that all parties today have to recognize their responsibilities with respect to where railroads are and what is happening, whether it is government or management. I also said that under no circumstances would I point a finger at those achievements arrived at by men who in many instances had only grades 7, 8 or 9 education who worked very hard at protecting their rights and the interests of those who have succeeded them.

Everybody in that room in Winnipeg, with the exception of the three people who walked out, knew exactly what I meant. It was a compliment to people who had made an enormous effort in the face of very difficult odds to achieve rights that were theirs.

I want to take up my friend's suggestion and apologize to anyone who has been mislead by the way those remarks were interpreted. I apologize if anyone felt slighted by them because those achievements were remarkable in those days. Now I think it is time for us to move on and make sure that the railroaders of today have a future by making sure the conditions they work in and the railroads they work for can be viable.

[Rail Line Abandonment, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. member for Saint John, I have been into her beautiful city on at least four or five occasions to meet with people who have concerns about the transportation system there.

I want to say to the hon. member that we are going to do everything we can to continue to provide services to Saint John and all other parts of the country. However, what we need to hear are some solutions and proposals that make a lot more sense than what was done over the last nine years by the party that she represents.